05-discussion.tex
4.98 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
Our results reveal a set of nine best management practices from the FLOSS and
agile development methods that were successfully employed in a
government-academia collaboration to develop an e-government platform. Around a
case study, we analyzed unsystematic decisions made by the development leaders
in a 30-month collaborative project and identified three macro-decisions that
harmonized the differences of the management processes of each organization. We
evidenced from data collection, and responses of the members of both sides to
the questionnaires and interviews, the benefits obtained through the adoption
of this empirical method. As a result of our investigation, the Table
\ref{practices-table} summarizes macro-decisions, practices, and benefits (also
highlighted in the results section).
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ | m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} | }
\hline
\textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline
\textbf{Use of system under development to develop the system itself} &
\begin{itemize}
\item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;
\item Monitoring of activities;
\item More interactions between developers and public servants;
\item Confidence in the code;
\item Organic documentation;
\end{itemize} \\ \hline
\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the UnB's lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
\item Conduct on the platform the technical discussions between government staff and the development team.
\item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.
\item Build a continuous delivery pipeline with steps involving both sides.
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Reducing communication misunderstanding;
\item Better meeting expectations of both sides;
\item Improvement of decision-making process;
\item Overcoming the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative projects with academia;
\item Synchronizing the execution pace of activities;
\item Improve the translation of the process from one side to the other;
\end{itemize} \\ \hline
\textbf{Divide the development team into priority fronts, and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market} &
\begin{itemize}
\item The coordinators separated the development team into priority work areas considering the main demands of the project.
\item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely.
\item Define among the interns the leadership roles: a coach for each front, and a meta-coach of the entire development team.
\item Each team has certain self-organization, being guided by one intern-coach and at least one senior developer.
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}
\item Conciliating the development processes of each institution, taking better technical decisions;
\item Improving the management and technical knowledge;
\item Self-organizing and gaining autonomy in the management of their tasks;
\end{itemize}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
\label{practices-table}
\end{table}
The results of this current work corroborate the lessons learned in our
previous work on studying the SPB project case \cite{meirelles2017spb}.
Evidence from the data collected, responses to questionnaires, and interviews
reinforce what has been reported by the academic coordination of the project,
adding the point of views of government and other roles involved on the
academic side. In short, the government staff had difficulty to understand how
collaboration works. They took time to realize that the project was not a
client-executor relationship and that both organizations were at the same
hierarchical level in the work plan. Finally, they also felt the project needed
a decision-maker role to resolve impasses between organizations, and the
development coordinator (UnB professor) sometimes took on that.
The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table
\ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more
substantial plurality and diversity of government stakeholders. As threats to
the validity of this work, we point out the lack of communication records and
low traceability of the management data referring to the first phase of the
project. We also consider as a threat the hiatus between the completion of the
project and the conduction of interviews and questionnaires, since we rely on
the memory of the interviewees to rescue the events. Also, the new work
experiences of the respondents after the project and their current working
mindset may also modify their interpretation of the topics addressed in the
questionnaire and consequently their responses.